Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J.B.C. who wrote (191576)	10/12/2001 7:07:56 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

Now who's reasoning is wobbly? Re: "point #2)" >>> Errrr, higher mileage efficiency (ceuterus paribus) = lower fuel consumption. (Nobody said anything about driving twice as many miles :-) Re: "Even the Bush EPA is considering tougher standards for diesels" >>> I meant they were looking at reducing particulate emissions from diesels. If they are also looking at higher efficiency engines that would be a <good> thing, but that's not what I was referring to. Re: "grids are only LOOSELY interconnected" >>> High line losses in long distance high tension power runs is a FACT. >>> If we A) decentralize power production, (putting more generating capacity nearer to the users), than by definition we have less electric loss in the total system. >>> If we B) upgrade the transmission system itself by implementing new technologies (for example super conducting, instead of aluminum cores in the high tension power lines) than line loss drops dramatically along those routes. >>> If we C) massively increase the interconnection capabilities of the various generators grids (this is what Cheney proposed) than we are able to do more peak load sharing, etc., as loads vary through time of day across the country from region to region. This too, results in an increase in efficiency (less wasted power going back to ground) throughout the entire system. >>> In an electric grid, what power isn't used immediately goes back to ground. That can clearly be defined as 'waste'. >>> I'm no expert in these matters, but those that are are saying that by decentralizing generation, increasing inter-grid exchange capacity, and decreasing line loss on the high tension grids, we can 'easily' achieve a greater efficiency in the utilization of generating capacity on an order of 40% or so. >>> As to the 60% figure, some very long high transmission runs do experience line loss of that magnitude or greater... particularly with higher ambient temperatures. (It's only aluminum at the core of those lines, after all, ...hardly the most efficient conductor out there. If we could afford copper, that would greatly increase the power handling characteristics of those lines). Re: "The REASON the grids are only lightly inter-connected is because it is NOT IN THE POWER GENERATORS OWN ECONOMIC INTEREST to allow competing power producers to come into to their backyards and maybe under-price their electricity sales." and then your comments: [Pure BS again. Most grids in existence now were created before ANY states allowed competition. The Utility Companies still in the vast majority of states are protected under state level regulations as a monopoly.] >>> Exactly! Most are still regulated monopolies. If they interconnect with a neighboring state's generator's grid... maybe they can sell some of their juice to the neighbor... and maybe the neighbor can sell some juice to them... BUT IN THE ADVENT OF 'DEREGULATION' AND TRUE COMPETITION MAYBE THAT NEIGHBOR CAN UNDERCUT THEIR SALES TO THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS. >>> Some utilities (naturally enough, different fuel mixes, different plant ages, different corporate efficiency) can make profits selling for less than others can. So, naturally enough, some favor deregulation, and some don't. >>> For a variety of reasons (they only used the juice for load balancing, they were not permitted to sell into other regions, etc.) most regulated utilities over the years haven't built very robust interconnections into their neighbor's grids. >>> The President's Energy Plan recognizes this... in fact it clearly points it out, and proposes that federal money expand the interconnections on a 'national priority basis'. >>> Some experts have said that we don't really have a 'national grid' at all... what we actually have is a serious of robust local & regional grids that are only 'loosely' interconnected at the national level. (Or not connected at all at the international level... remember the President's plan wants to build grid connections to Mexico & Canada too, so we can buy more power there.) Re: "nuclear fusion developments" >>> Whatever. You say potato, I say potatoe.... I just see that the energy 'conversion' percent keeps going up. Re: "when oil starts to run out" >>> Check the CIA estimates. They have a pretty good estimate of it. I'll bet Bush and Cheney are well aware of the figures, too. All I know is that known world reserves have been falling since the '60s, while consumption has been steadily rising (baring the odd recession or two). Percent of dry holes has been on a steady increase for years, also. Re: "Do I think oil will stay cheap" >>> No, but all things are relative. I'm not for subsidizing any form of energy once it has reached the stage of commercial viability. (For example that nuclear fission power plant subsidy called "The Price Anderson Act" - up for renewal in the President's Energy Plan. Price Anderson says: any nuclear disaster resulting in expenses over $1 billion will be picked up by the taxpayers, not the power industry.) I'm against this because it removes any incentive for the industry to innovate safer designs... designs less vulnerable to terrorist attack, etc. It isn't capitalism, it's pure campaign contribution pay-back. The industry has had 30 years to convince the insurance industry that they can operate safely - knowing that Price Anderson was designed to sunset all along - and if they haven't done it yet, it's past time for them to make that case. >>> I'm also not for stupid things like a 'carbon tax', (there is zip for evidence of 'global warming' caused by human actions). >>> But quantifiable hazards are to be avoided. Re: "breathing in soot", well, if you want to, feel free.... It's just not something I can recommend. >>> Are you saying that there are no environmental influences that can affect our health at all? DDT doesn't cause birds to lay thinner eggs, lower ozone levels at altitude in the atmosphere aren't allowing higher UV levels at the ground (or has most of Australia just decided to wear hats for the fashion flair it brings to their lives?) >>> And, as to why lung cancer was practically unseen at the turn of the 20th. century... well I'm no doctor. >>> Maybe's it's inflation or tacos that causes it... I dunno.